Talk:Declan Napier/Archives/2011/July
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Teen pregnancy storyline
Can other sources be found that discuss criticism of this storyline? The DigitalSpy source is very short and the organization in question appears to be nothing more than Angela Conway's personal Wordpress blog. It's an issue of undue weight and NPOV to give such a prominent place to criticism that a) was covered only in a short article in one source, rather than in detail in multiple sources b) appears to originate from a non-notable group. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- If there are no other sources available - then it's best to leave it as it is. The Digitalspy source is fine. They are a group who have caused trouble with Aussie TV before though.RaintheOne BAM 21:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm aware that Digitalspy is a reliable source, but if they're the only source, the "controversy" is probably not important enough to be included. This is particularly true since Digitalspy runs a story about Neighbours nearly every day. We don't report everything they have to say about it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well I guess we can look into other sources. However it doesn't need removing, as it could just be reworded a little to suit the scale of the fall out.. Also Before June 2010 DS's coverage of the Australian soaps was pretty limited and when they got a new editor that changed. So it's not totally true...RaintheOne BAM 22:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think if it's to be included, we'd need to find other sources that attest that it was controversial. One story, which quotes an "organization" that appears to actually be a one-person Wordpress blog, doesn't constitute "controversy" worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- The Digital Spy reference is absolutely fine as it is. Also that section isn't given undue weight. Look at the size of it compared to the article as a whole, it's fine.--5 albert square (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, Digitalspy is reliable, but the fact that a media source whose function is to cover soap opera minutiae was the only news source to have picked up this supposed "controversy" means it really wasn't all that controversial. Doesn't belong in the article, and certainly doesn't belong in the lead. And as I pointed out, the "organization" in question appears to be one woman's blog, not an actual organization, which could indeed explain why no other sources care. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not just DS discussing it.--5 albert square (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good, that was the kind of source I was hoping to find. I still don't think it belongs since, as I said, it's just the opinion of some random woman with a blog, even if it was picked up in a couple of sources (the new source you linked all but admits that "Pro-Family Perspectives" is just Angela Conway), but if it's to be included, more sources are good to attest that it was actually controversial. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well PFP have gained more media coverage than this elsewhere, so they clearly have some influence and media sources think they are news worthy. Don't see why it's still a problem for you.RaintheOne BAM 23:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good, that was the kind of source I was hoping to find. I still don't think it belongs since, as I said, it's just the opinion of some random woman with a blog, even if it was picked up in a couple of sources (the new source you linked all but admits that "Pro-Family Perspectives" is just Angela Conway), but if it's to be included, more sources are good to attest that it was actually controversial. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not just DS discussing it.--5 albert square (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, Digitalspy is reliable, but the fact that a media source whose function is to cover soap opera minutiae was the only news source to have picked up this supposed "controversy" means it really wasn't all that controversial. Doesn't belong in the article, and certainly doesn't belong in the lead. And as I pointed out, the "organization" in question appears to be one woman's blog, not an actual organization, which could indeed explain why no other sources care. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well I guess we can look into other sources. However it doesn't need removing, as it could just be reworded a little to suit the scale of the fall out.. Also Before June 2010 DS's coverage of the Australian soaps was pretty limited and when they got a new editor that changed. So it's not totally true...RaintheOne BAM 22:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm aware that Digitalspy is a reliable source, but if they're the only source, the "controversy" is probably not important enough to be included. This is particularly true since Digitalspy runs a story about Neighbours nearly every day. We don't report everything they have to say about it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)